SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) This petition is directed against order dated 21.8.12 passed by the District Collector, Bhilwara, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner herein for impleading him as party respondent in the appeal preferred by the first respondent against order dated 4.6.12 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Supply) [SDO (Supply)], suspending his authorisation to operate the Fair Price Shop at Dhanop, stands rejected and the appeal filed by the first respondent has been allowed.
(2.) The facts relevant are that the first respondent was issued an authorisation dated 11.4.08 to operate the Fair Price Shop at Dhanop, Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara. The SDO (Supply) issued a notice dated 2.5.12 to the first respondent informing that as per the registered adoption deed, the name of his adoptive father is Chhaganlal Sirotha, yet while making application for authorisation to operate the Fair Price Shop, he has disclosed the name of his father as Shri Ramgopal Sirotha. The first respondent was called upon to furnish the explanation in this regard. The notice as aforesaid was issued to the first respondent on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner herein. Later, vide order dated 4.6.12 issued by the SDO (Supply), the authorisation issued in favour of the first respondent was suspended and he was directed to hand over the charge of the Fair Price Shop to the Manager, Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Dhanop. Thereafter, vide order dated 5.6.12, the SDO (Supply), Shahpura made recommendation to the District Supply Officer, Bhilwara for cancellation of authorisation issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.6.12 issued by the SDO (Supply), the first respondent preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Bhilwara. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner herein, the complainant, made an application for impleading him as party to the proceedings. Vide order dated 21.8.12, the District Collector rejected the application of the petitioner seeking impleadment and allowed the appeal preferred by the first respondent. Hence, this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the District Collector has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for impleading him as party respondent in the matter. Learned counsel submitted that the proceeding against the first respondent for suspension/cancellation of the license was initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner and therefore, he was necessary party in the matter and no order could have been passed by the Appellate Authority without impleading the petitioner as party to the proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that for just decision of the appeal, it was absolutely necessary to implead the petitioner as party to the proceedings.;